Many of your articles are about how we are far ahead of IPCC projections on emissions reductions, but then this is about how we’re impossibly far behind on trying to achieve net zero. Could you explain? I’m sure it’s not actually a contradiction but it kind of feels like one based on the public debate
A great Q, and I can see how these might seem contradictory. The reference (also called business-as-usual) scenario of the IPCC AR5 was RCP8.5 which projected ever-increasing CO2 emissions through the century - requiring the building of ~30,000 new coal power plants. That was never going to happen. At the same time the work still today has ~7,000 coal power plants. Retiring all those (and gas and use of oil) remains a huge task. So at once, the ridiculous scenarios are now clearly seen as implausible, taking off the table the massive increases in CO2. At the same time, deep decarbonization remains a huge challenge, simply starting from where the world is today (shown in the figures in this post). Let me know if this makes sense.
How should I bottom-line this as an ordinary non-expert citizen? A lot of the public debate seems to try to polarize this between apocalypse/ non-apocalypse scenarios, with net zero being the apocalypse avoidance option and the IPCC forecasting the apocalypse if nothing is done in the near future. It seems like you are outlining a middle case where there is significant and harmful warming of 2.5-3 C by 2100 but it is not apocalyptic. However, given the difficulty of NZ even by 2100 carbon concentrations and warming would continue to grow after that point.
This is not really a scenario that is politically useful for either side, as it continues to depict a serious problem but also portrays it as somewhat less immediate and urgent than the IPCC does. Is that a fair take?
With all due respect, Roger, from a fellow atmospheric scientist, what is the point of writing "requires the deployment of 1 nuclear power plant equivalent of carbon-free energy per day for decades to come"? I expect this from the more rabid unscientific greens but not from you. Especially given the commitment of China and India to increasing their coal use for decades into the future. Can't we move beyond pointless discussions of the kind you just published and address the realities of evolving energy usage globally, and what it implies for global GHG emissions going forward?
Can you also please write a piece addressing the energy poverty being created in Europe currently, and provide perspective about the draconian measures being forced on lower and middle class citizens and businesses in countries like the Netherlands, parts of Australia and Canada, and many other countries in the west that each account for 0.5-1% or less of global emissions, while China, India and Russia are collectively approaching 50% of total global emissions and two thirds of global coal burning? You would be doing a service to policy makers and the MSM by providing such much needed perspective.
I do appreciate your efforts to bring science and rationality to important climate issues. This article is a rare "miss". Cheers, Arthur
Some good Qs here, which makes for some interesting future topics. Don't focus too much on the nuclear power part of the post -- I am using that simply as a measuring stick to present in comprehensible terms what achieving net zero would take in terms of deployment. Whether that is doable or desirable are of course different Qs. PS. I'm not train as an atmospheric scientist - math, public policy, political science!
Based on your writing here and elsewhere, as well as that of Mark Mills at the Manhattan Institute, I am convinced that the notion of a Net Zero target being achieved any time in the next century is absurd. Setting impossible goals as a basis for policy making is not productive and it it is not based on anything approaching sound science. Scaring people into thinking that we must achieve Net Zero by 2030 or 2050 to avoid climate catastrophe and the end of the human race as we know it today is the height of irresponsibility. Yet politicians worldwide seem to be heading down this garden path.
In the USA the Democrat Party driven by poorly informed, pedantic, self absorbed, histrionic progressives is in the midst of destroying a presidency and perhaps a Party in order to push unachievable goals that are not grounded in reality. They are being assisted in this by dysfunctional universities, politically driven professional societies and a media staffed by graduates of our dysfunctional universities.
We need a change. Unless folks like you (an avowed Democrat/Progressive) can affect change on the left it's time to let the other party take a wack at it.
My view is that 2050 is a big ask (unlikely) but between 2050 and 2100 is absolutely doable. That said, probably cannot be done without a massive commitment to nuclear.
I believe that you have been a consistent and vocal advocate of a carbon tax. The idea being that such a tax would make fossil fuel energy more costly and both nuclear and “renewables” more competitive. With $5 gasoline and drastically increasing electricity costs that we are seeing today it is clear that this is politically untenable.
Without a carbon tax the nuclear costs need to come down significantly. Our overwrought and punitive regulatory regime seems to preclude this. So is 2050-2100 really doable?
Fair enough but do you really trust our disfunctional government in Washington to use the revenue from a carbon tax to fund energy innovation? I don’t.
There are a lot of possible models for how funds raised via a C tax might be invested into energy innovation -- especially if it is a globally harmonized tax. A model like CGIAR in agriculture might make sense, with deployment and evaluation conducted in places desperately in need of greater energy access. I think there are lots of possible models that would limit the risks (not eliminate!) of a C tax being sucked up into general revenues.
The information in this post is very helpful. It grounds the discussion of plans for the future in specific facts about the recent past that are relevant to estimating what might happen moving forward.
Many of your articles are about how we are far ahead of IPCC projections on emissions reductions, but then this is about how we’re impossibly far behind on trying to achieve net zero. Could you explain? I’m sure it’s not actually a contradiction but it kind of feels like one based on the public debate
A great Q, and I can see how these might seem contradictory. The reference (also called business-as-usual) scenario of the IPCC AR5 was RCP8.5 which projected ever-increasing CO2 emissions through the century - requiring the building of ~30,000 new coal power plants. That was never going to happen. At the same time the work still today has ~7,000 coal power plants. Retiring all those (and gas and use of oil) remains a huge task. So at once, the ridiculous scenarios are now clearly seen as implausible, taking off the table the massive increases in CO2. At the same time, deep decarbonization remains a huge challenge, simply starting from where the world is today (shown in the figures in this post). Let me know if this makes sense.
Thanks for your reply, which is very helpful.
How should I bottom-line this as an ordinary non-expert citizen? A lot of the public debate seems to try to polarize this between apocalypse/ non-apocalypse scenarios, with net zero being the apocalypse avoidance option and the IPCC forecasting the apocalypse if nothing is done in the near future. It seems like you are outlining a middle case where there is significant and harmful warming of 2.5-3 C by 2100 but it is not apocalyptic. However, given the difficulty of NZ even by 2100 carbon concentrations and warming would continue to grow after that point.
This is not really a scenario that is politically useful for either side, as it continues to depict a serious problem but also portrays it as somewhat less immediate and urgent than the IPCC does. Is that a fair take?
I think that is perfectly fair👍
I posted up a figure to help explain this here: https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1546262241908965376?s=20&t=ZLihqhUm9gvnT9NzLuVLVQ
Roger, I hope that you are getting as much from your interacting here as I am.
By the way I am now a paying subscriber.
Thank you!
Limiting comments to paid subscribers has been the best thing & improves the conversations immeasurably. Much appreciated. Glad to have you here.
Why would we want net zero carbon? that would be economic suicide. Petroleum based products are vital to the economy.
Why? is a different question than What would it take?
This post is focused on the latter, but I'm happy to do one on the former before too long!
With all due respect, Roger, from a fellow atmospheric scientist, what is the point of writing "requires the deployment of 1 nuclear power plant equivalent of carbon-free energy per day for decades to come"? I expect this from the more rabid unscientific greens but not from you. Especially given the commitment of China and India to increasing their coal use for decades into the future. Can't we move beyond pointless discussions of the kind you just published and address the realities of evolving energy usage globally, and what it implies for global GHG emissions going forward?
Can you also please write a piece addressing the energy poverty being created in Europe currently, and provide perspective about the draconian measures being forced on lower and middle class citizens and businesses in countries like the Netherlands, parts of Australia and Canada, and many other countries in the west that each account for 0.5-1% or less of global emissions, while China, India and Russia are collectively approaching 50% of total global emissions and two thirds of global coal burning? You would be doing a service to policy makers and the MSM by providing such much needed perspective.
I do appreciate your efforts to bring science and rationality to important climate issues. This article is a rare "miss". Cheers, Arthur
Some good Qs here, which makes for some interesting future topics. Don't focus too much on the nuclear power part of the post -- I am using that simply as a measuring stick to present in comprehensible terms what achieving net zero would take in terms of deployment. Whether that is doable or desirable are of course different Qs. PS. I'm not train as an atmospheric scientist - math, public policy, political science!
Based on your writing here and elsewhere, as well as that of Mark Mills at the Manhattan Institute, I am convinced that the notion of a Net Zero target being achieved any time in the next century is absurd. Setting impossible goals as a basis for policy making is not productive and it it is not based on anything approaching sound science. Scaring people into thinking that we must achieve Net Zero by 2030 or 2050 to avoid climate catastrophe and the end of the human race as we know it today is the height of irresponsibility. Yet politicians worldwide seem to be heading down this garden path.
In the USA the Democrat Party driven by poorly informed, pedantic, self absorbed, histrionic progressives is in the midst of destroying a presidency and perhaps a Party in order to push unachievable goals that are not grounded in reality. They are being assisted in this by dysfunctional universities, politically driven professional societies and a media staffed by graduates of our dysfunctional universities.
We need a change. Unless folks like you (an avowed Democrat/Progressive) can affect change on the left it's time to let the other party take a wack at it.
My view is that 2050 is a big ask (unlikely) but between 2050 and 2100 is absolutely doable. That said, probably cannot be done without a massive commitment to nuclear.
I believe that you have been a consistent and vocal advocate of a carbon tax. The idea being that such a tax would make fossil fuel energy more costly and both nuclear and “renewables” more competitive. With $5 gasoline and drastically increasing electricity costs that we are seeing today it is clear that this is politically untenable.
Without a carbon tax the nuclear costs need to come down significantly. Our overwrought and punitive regulatory regime seems to preclude this. So is 2050-2100 really doable?
The case I have made for a carbon tax is not to make energy appreciably more expensive (e.g., $5/t carbon take would increase a gallon of gas by $0.04) but to raise funds to invest in energy innovation. I make that case in TCF and also more recently here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/13/the-case-for-a-goldilocks-carbon-tax/?sh=3273297cf02a
Fair enough but do you really trust our disfunctional government in Washington to use the revenue from a carbon tax to fund energy innovation? I don’t.
There are a lot of possible models for how funds raised via a C tax might be invested into energy innovation -- especially if it is a globally harmonized tax. A model like CGIAR in agriculture might make sense, with deployment and evaluation conducted in places desperately in need of greater energy access. I think there are lots of possible models that would limit the risks (not eliminate!) of a C tax being sucked up into general revenues.
The information in this post is very helpful. It grounds the discussion of plans for the future in specific facts about the recent past that are relevant to estimating what might happen moving forward.
Thank you!
I think that 2050 is a big ask, but that between 2050 and 2100 is doable.